Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article
A Series of Answers to Common Questions
By
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
According to the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law is something good and holy. Believers are
commanded to delight in the Law and meditate upon it. (Cf. Deut.
5:29; 2 Kings 17:37; Psalm 1:2; 119)
But according to
the apostle Paul, the Law is a curse since Jesus came to redeem man from "the Curse
of the Law." (Cf. Gal. 3:13)
Christian
Reponse:
Paul was not
calling the Law a curse, but was speaking about the curse the Law puts on all who fail to
follow it wholeheartedly:
"All
who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: `Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of
the Law.' " Galatians
Jesus did not
save us from the Law, but from the judgement which falls upon all since none is able to
perfectly fulfill all that the Law demands.
Elsewhere, Paul
calls the Law holy and good:
"What
shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not!
Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law... So then, the law is holy,
and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good,
then, become death to me? By no means! But in
order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me, through what was good,
so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is
spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do
not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate to do. And
if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the
law is good."
Those who have
been freed from sin through faith in Christ are now empowered to fulfill
the moral aspect of the law. The ceremonial aspect such as sacrifices and holy days are
fulfilled in Jesus, making only the moral aspects binding on Christians:
"Do
we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Rom.
My Response:
I
could care less to what Paul has to say. Here are some links for Paul:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm
http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm
I
call on every Christian and Shamoun to go those sites and read
what they have to say and then get back to me on Paul.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
According to Paul the resurrection body is spiritual. (Cf. 1
Corinthians 15:44) Yet, in Luke 24:39 Jesus did
not have a spiritual body, but a body of "flesh and bones." Furthermore, Paul
indicates that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the
Christian
Reponse:
First, Jesus did not say that his body was "flesh and blood" but rather
"flesh and bones." Jesus was
emphasizing the material aspect of his glorified body, that it was not merely immaterial.
Paul's use of the tem "flesh and blood" refers to the corrupt, perishable body
we inherit from Adam. (Cf. 1 Cor.
15:49) This body cannot inherit God's kingdom since it is prone to sin and disobedience, and sin cannot dwell in God's presence. (Cf. Psalm 5:4)
Secondly, Paul
does not say that at the resurrection believers will no longer have material bodies, since
he specifically calls it a spiritual body. Paul
is contrasting the body conceived in corruption with the body conceived by the Spirit of
God:
"What
is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual BODY." 1 Cor. 15:42b-44 NRSV
Hence, it is a
body that is no longer subject to sin and destruction, but one that is empowered by God's
Spirit. That Paul's use of the term spiritual
refers to one empowered by the Holy Spirit is evident from the following verses:
"The
spiritual man makes judgement about all things,
but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement." 1 Cor.
"Brothers
I could not address you as spiritual but as
worldly-mere infants in Christ." 1 Cor.
3:1 NIV
"Brothers,
if someone is caught in sin, you who are spiritual
should restore him gently." Galatians 6:1 NIV
Therefore, the
spiritual body is a body made alive by the Spirit of God:
"And
if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ
from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." Romans
Finally, Jesus
was not denying his resurrection in Luke 24:39, but
denying that he was just a spirit as the disciples thought. In fact, continuing further
into the text Jesus affirms his
death and resurrection:
"Then
he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, `Thus it is
written, that the Messiah is to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day." Luke 24:45-46 NRSV
He wrote:
Once again I could care less to what Paul has to say.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm
http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/paul.html
He wrote:
4. THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
Most Muslim
attacks on the Bible center around
the issue of contradictions. Muslims assert that the Bible is full of contradictions, and
therefore cannot be trusted. Because of the magnitude of the writings in circulation in
support of alleged Bible contradictions, we will not be able to thoroughly address them in
this study.
What we will do
is give list of books and web sites that specifically deal with the issue of Bible
contradictions. We seriously suggest that the reader invest both the time and money into
getting a hold of these resources since they will prove to be invaluable in effectively
witnessing to Muslims. Some suggested material include the
following:
BOOKS
When Critics Ask - A Popular Handbook On Bible
Difficulties
Norman Geisler &
Thomas Howe
Victor Books, 1992 by SP Publications, Inc.
ISBN: 0-89693-698-8
Hard Sayings Of The Bible
Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
& Peter H. Davids & F.F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, ILL.
ISBN: 0-8308-1423-X
Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties
Dr. Gleason L. Archer
Zondervan Corporation, 1982,
True Guidance - 5 Part Series
Light of Life - P.O. BOX 13
A-9503 Villach, Austria
(Note - These
series of books were written to refute two Islamic writings against the Bible. One is
titled Izhar ul-haqq [The Revelation of
the Truth], a book that was written to refute C. C. Pfander's
Mizan ul-Haqq. And the other being titled al-Sayf al-Hamidi al-Saqil [The Furbished Hamidi Sword].
Highly recommended.)
WEB SITES
Answering
Islam <http://www.answering-islam.org>
(http://www.answering-islam.org)
The most comprehensive web site dealing with Muslim issues. Do
a web search for Bible contradictions and you will find some great answers and links to
alleged biblical contradictions.
Debate
Site - 101 Cleared Up Contradictions
<http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm>
(
http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)
A paper responding to Muslim Apologist Shabir Ally's 101 Clear Contradictions of the Bible. Excellent and scholarly.
A
Christian Think Tank <http://christian-thinktank.com/hway.html>
(http://christian-thinktank.com)
A site respected even by atheists. Perhaps the most
comprehensive answers ever compiled on Bible difficulties. The answers are based primarily
on a superb exegetical understanding of scripture, as well as an amazing knowledge of
archaeology. Fantastic.
These are just some of the many
resources available for Christians, thoroughly equipping them for the task at hand.
In this section,
we will briefly address some of the more common allegations made against the Bible by
Muslims.
Muslim
Argument:
There are 66 books within the canon of the Protestant Bible. Yet the Catholic Bible
contains 73. Either one has added or omitted 7 books from the Bible.
Christian
Reponse:
The 7 books which are included in the Catholic Bible are called the Jewish Apocrypha,
literature compiled after the last O.T. book Malachi. These books are not inspired nor are
they part of the Hebrew Bible. The Protestants reject these books for the following
reasons:
1-They were never
recognized by the Jews as being part of the canon of scripture since they were not written
by inspired men of God. The Talmud states:
Our
Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from
This clearly
demonstrates that the Jews viewed all the literature written after Malachi as being
uninspired. It also affirms that the New Testament picks up where the Old leaves off,
since the authors affirmed inspiration for their writings. (Cf.
2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 5:18- Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 1:20-21,
In fact, certain
books of the Apocrypha flat out deny inspiration. (Cf. 1 Maccabees
9:27) This fact alone is enough to convince someone of the uninspired status of these
writings.
2-At the Council of
Jamnia, A.D. 90, Rabbis headed by Yohannan
ben Zakkai acknowledged the 39
books which comprise the present Hebrew and Protestant OT canon as the official Word of
God. Everything else was discarded. It should be pointed that this Council did not make
the books canonical, but arrived at the conclusion that only these particular books were
received throughout the generations as being that which God inspired.
3-The Lord Jesus
personally affirms the Protestant OT canon. During the time of Christ, the Old Testament
was classified into three sections: "The Law," containing the five books of
Moses. "The Prophets" which included two subdivisions.
The first called "the Former Prophets" and included the books of Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, Samuel and Kings. The second is called "the Latter Prophets" which
included the books beginning with Isaiah to Ezekiel with the exception of Lamentations;
and from Hosea to Malachi. These books were also subsumed into smaller lists such as
combining the books from Hosea to Malachi together into one scroll called "the minor
Prophets."
The third is
"the Writings" or "Psalms." This section consisted first of Psalms,
Proverbs and Job; then the "Scrolls" of Song of Songs, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This gives us a
total of 39 OT books, the precise canon of books alluded to by Christ:
"And
he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44 KJV
Jesus affirms the
OT division of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms/Writings as being those books which
prophesied his coming. No mention of the Apocrypha at all.
The 7 books were
not officially declared to be part of the Catholic OT canon until the Council of Trent,
A.D. 1546. This was primarily in response to the Protestant Reformers such as Martin
Luther and their attacks on doctrines such as indulgences. In one of these books, 2 Maccabees
4-Yet,
amazingly, a book which was not included as part of the canon, despite the fact that it
also formed part of the Apocrypha literature, is 2 Esdras (4 Esdra by Roman Catholics). This book rejects prayers for the
dead. (Cf. 2 Esdra 7:105) The acceptance of 2 Maccabees and the rejection of 2 Esdras affirms the total arbitrariness of the decision behind the choosing
of books which supported Catholic doctrine, while rejecting those that did not.
5-The Quran acknowledges the canon of the Bible which existed at the time
of Muhammad as being the Word of God. (Cf. S. 2:113; 3:79; 10:94) The canon which was in
existence at that time were the 39 books of the OT and the 27
N.T. books. These are the books that form the present day canon of the Protestant Bible.
As was indicated,
the canon of the OT had been finalized in the latter half of the first century. Whereas
the New Testament canon was officially decided upon in the fourth century at the Council
of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).
Hence, any books
which were added to the Bible after these Councils cannot be accepted as the Word of God.
God has given the Church the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to form his infallible rule
of Christian faith. This is a fact which the Quran affirms.
He wrote:
It
is good Shamoun posts Christian websites that are there to
answer Bible problems and contradictions. You will see for yourself of what a bad job they
are doing and how weak their answers are. You could say all you want to undermine the
other 7 books just as much as they could respond back. The fact is that this shows how
corrupt your book is with one having 7 less books than the other. The Quran
does not acknowledge your Bible as the FULL UNCORRUPTED word of God and that is a sad lie
which I will be refuting soon. Here are several links that document the several problems
with the so-called word of God, which Christians call the Bible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/numeric.shtml
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/absurd%20torah%20science.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels_rebuttal.htm
http://www.muslimtents.com/gloriousislam/is_the_bible_corrupted.htm
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/criticaltext.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/original.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/modappr.html
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/criteria.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/BibleTex.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/abrogate.html
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Novscript2y3.html
I
call on Christians to read all those links and then get back to me on whether you actually
you believe your book is the un CORRUPTED word of God.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
There is no reference in the Bible itself where it indicates that the book canonized by
the Jews and Christians would be called the Bible. The word "Bible" never
appears in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. This is a man-made title.
Christian
Reponse:
The term Bible is
derived through Latin from the Greek term biblia (books). The earliest extra-biblical
usage of the term is found in 2 Clement 14:2 (A.D. 150): "the books (ta biblia) and the apostles declare
that the church ... has existed from the beginning."
Biblia is the plural form
of the Greek biblion,
which is itself a diminutive of biblos. These terms are used in Scripture
as designations for inspired writings:
"And
truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book
(en to biblio touto)." John
"For
it is written in the Book (biblo) of
Psalms..." Acts 1:20 NKJV
"Then
God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets (en biblo ton propheton)..." Acts 7:42 NKJV
"For
as many as are of the works of the law are under curse; for it is written, `Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things
which are written in the book of the law (en to biblio tou nomou), to do them" Gal.
"When
you come, bring the cloak I left at
Paul identifies
the inspired writings as the biblia,
the books, which at that time included both the Old Testament scrolls as well as the
Gospel of Luke. (Cf. 1 Tim. 5:18-Luke 10:7 see below)
"I
was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,
saying, "What you see, write in a book (graphon heis biblion)
and send it to the seven churches which are in
"For
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book (tes
propheteias tou bibliou): If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him
the plagues that are written in this book (en tou biblio); and if anyone takes away words of the book of this prophecy (tou bibliou tes propheteias),
God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the
things which are written in this book (en to biblio touto)." Rev. 22:18-19
These verses
indicate that the term from which the word "Bible" is derived is indeed found
within sacred scripture itself. Hence, the word used for the Judeo-Christian Scripture is
not something which was arbitrarily decided upon, but something derived from the inspired
writings.
(
(Note - This same
phenomena is also true of the Quran. Although the word "Quran" appears in the Islamic scripture, nowhere will one find
a verse indicating how many chapters make up the Quran or
whether the book itself should be thus named.
In fact, some
Muslims such as Ubayy b. Kabb,
called the Master of the Quranic reciters,
had 116 chapters in his text of the Quran; while others such
as Abdallah Ibn Masud included only 111 out of the present 114 chapters of the
Islamic text.
Furthermore,
early Islamic sources indicate that there was even disagreement among the companions of
Muhammad as to what name should be given to the codified recitation:
"Once
the Quran had been compiled, people wondered what to call it.
Some suggested calling it Sifir (`the Book'), but Ali refused, because that is a
Hebrew word. Later, Ali said: `I saw one like it in
My Response:
Unlike
your Bible the word Quran is in the Quran.
They could have thought of a name to call it, but fact is it was always called the Quran. In the Quran itself it says the Quran has been revealed to Muhammad, hence revelations Muhammad
received were part of the QURAN. So it does not matter if the Quran
does not mention how many verses there are in the book, but it does mention its name,
which is called the Quran.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
Ezekiel 23:20-21 uses what seems to be pornographic
language. God speaks of
Christian
Reponse:
God is likening
(Note - The Quran uses similar language in describing the pleasures of
My Response:
Whether to be
taken literally or not it is indeed pornographic language. I think many will find this Christian site very
interesting:
Let
us now look at the so-called pornographic language of the Quran.
Surah 78:33:
YUSUFALI: And voluptuous women of equal age;
PICKTHAL: And voluptuous women of equal age;
SHAKIR: And voluptuous women of equal age;
Now
tell me how does a verse talking about the pleasure of paradise of maidens with swelling
breasts compare to: God speaks of
Very
funny, they don’t even come close. First of all the Quran
is simply discussing the delight of paradise, nothing pornographic there but it is
discussing some thing that will happen. It is giving explanations of how it will be in
heaven and the pleasures you get. Nothing pornographic they’re at all. You could
easily explain this to a kid and tell them beautiful women and when they are old enough
you could tell them swelling breasts. However so what possible explanation could you give
a kid on Ezekiel 23:20-21, what possibly could you say. 'Oh son this verse is about women
who want men who have lower parts of a similar sort to donkeys.
Then
what will you explain on the horse? I will be waiting till a Christian gives me a
reasonable explanation of how I could tell that verse to a kid.
He wrote:
Muslim
Argument:
The Bible degrades women, blaming Eve for the fall. Furthermore, it commands women to
remain silent in the churches and not to usurp authority over the man.
Women are also to
have their hair covered as a sign of submission to their husbands. (Cf. 1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:5-10,
13; 14:34)
Christian
Response:
Although the
Bible does blame Eve, it also blames Adam. In fact, God blames both Adam and Eve and
curses them accordingly. (Cf. Gen. 3:16-20)
Secondly, just as
Eve is singled out for the fall, elsewhere in the Bible Adam is held personally accountable. (Cf. Hos.
6:7; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49)
Thirdly, Paul's
command that women should have their heads covered was not a sign of humiliation, but of
respect. A woman who either had her head shaved or uncovered was considered to be immoral
and rebellious, especially if she had a husband. In order to protect both the reputation
of the believing women and the Church, Paul commanded head coverings. In this way, no
unbeliever could ever bring an accusation that believing women were immoral and
rebellious.
Fourthly,
although women are told not to usurp authority over men in the church, they still were
allowed to prophecy as noted in 1 Cor.
11:5. Paul's point in women remaining silent must be understood to mean that they
are not to speak authoritatively over men, since this was culturally unacceptable.
Fifthly, the
Bible states that both women and men are created in God `s image. (Cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1) Woman is called "the mother of all
the living." (Cf. Gen. 3:20) In fact, "there is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)
Sixthly, men are
commanded to view their wives as their own bodies, caring for them as Christ cared enough
for the Church to die for her. Husbands must be also willing to do likewise. (Cf. Eph. 5:25-33) In fact, Paul demands that husbands view
their bodies as not belonging to themselves but to their wives and vice-versa, and must
not deny the others' needs. (Cf. 1 Cor.
7:1-5)
Furthermore, the
Bible mentions women who were used by God as prophets and leaders such as Miriam (Exodus
All these factors
demonstrate that whereas there is a positional subjection on the part of women in the
structure of the Church, this in no way assumes that they are inferior. In fact, they are
given an honor lacking in any other religion.
(Note - The Quran states that women are inferior to men, since God made man
superior. [Cf. 2:28; 4:34] In fact, the Quran encourages men to deny disobedient wives sex as a form of
punishment, and beat them if they persist in disobedience. [Cf. 4:34])
My Response:
This topic has already been dealt with here (*).
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
Christians presume inspiration of all the books of the Bible. Yet, there are places where
inspiration is seemingly denied. For instance, Luke affirms in Luke
1:1-4 that it "seemed good also to me to write an orderly account that you may
know the certainty of the things you have been taught." No mention of inspiration!
In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul writes, "To the rest I say this
(I, not the Lord)..." Again in 1 Corinthians 7:25
Paul states, "Now about virgins: I have no
command from the Lord..." Paul denies inspiration.
Another place
where Paul denies inspiration is at Romans 3:7 where he
affirms that he is speaking falsehood.
Christian
Response:
In regards to Luke 1:1-4, nowhere does Luke deny inspiration, and hence this
is an argument from silence. Inspiration does not preclude careful investigation of
historical material. Rather, inspiration entails the Holy Spirit guiding the authors to
record God's words without error. Therefore, Luke was guided to carefully investigate and
include material that was without error and which the Holy Spirit wanted to be written.
Furthermore, Paul
writes that "All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)." (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16.) Paul includes Luke's writings as part of
those Scriptures which are God-breathed:
"For the Scripture says, `Do not muzzle the ox while
it is treading out the grain', and `The worker
deserves his wages.'" 1 Tim.
Paul's first
citation is from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second is from Luke 10:7:
"Stay
in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move
around from house to house." NIV
Not only is
Luke's writing inspired Scripture, but it is also placed on the same level of authority as
Moses' writings.
Paul's statements
in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25 are not a denial of
inspiration. Rather, they constitute an acknowledgment that the Lord, while on earth, has
given no commands to the disciples in regards to these particular issues. Therefore, Paul
gave "judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy
is trustworthy." 1 Cor.
7:25
Being guided by
the Holy Spirit, Paul could speak authoritatively and infallibly on matters not addressed
by Christ while on earth. This is precisely what Paul goes on to say at the conclusion of
his discussion:
"In
my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is - and
I think that I too have the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 7:40 NIV
Hence, Paul knows
that what he says is true since it is the Spirit who is speaking through him.
The apostle Peter
says of Paul:
"Bear
in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. His letters
contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people
distort as they do the other Scriptures, to
their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV
Peter affirms
that Paul wrote with the wisdom which God gave him, placing his writings on the same level
of authority as other inspired writings.
Paul himself
affirms that it is by the wisdom given to him by God's Holy Spirit which enables him to
both proclaim and write infallibly:
"This
is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom
but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words."
1 Cor. 2:13 NIV
In Romans 3:7, Paul is not claiming to be speaking falsely. That
is a gross misquotation of what Paul was actually saying. Paul was speaking of God's
justice and how man's unrighteousness affirms that God's judgment upon sinners is
righteous. Hence, Paul is speaking hypothetically of one who might ask if by a person's
falsehood God is proven righteous, why then does God condemn
the person? This becomes crystal clear from the text itself:
"But
if our righteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That
God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not!
If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone
might argue, `If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory,
why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say - as
we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say - `Let us
do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is
deserved." Romans 3:5-8
My Response:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm
http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/paul.html
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
According to 2 Samuel 24:1. God moved David to number the
fighting men of Israel, whereas according to 1 Chronicles 21:1
it was Satan who moved David to do so.
Christian
Response:
There is no difficulty at all with these passages, since God allowed Satan to incite David
to number
The reason why
this angered the Lord is that rather than trusting God, David was evidently placing his
trust in the number of his people. Even David's commander-in-chief, Joab,
was not totally pleased with the king's decision:
"But
Joab said to the king, `May the LORD your God increase the
number of the people a hundred fold, while the eyes of my lord king can still see it! But why does my lord the king want to do this? But
the king's word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of
the army..." 2 Sam. 24:3-4a NRSV
Evidently, David
had purposed within his heart to number
Hence, although
Satan was the direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the Devil can only
do that which God allows him to do.
(Note - This is a
teaching which the Quran wholeheartedly agrees with, that the
devils can only do what Allah allows them to do:
"Likewise
did We make for every Messenger an enemy - Satans
among men and Jinns, inspiring each other with flowery
discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so willed they would
not have done it: so leave them and what they forge." S. 6:112 A.Y. Ali
"Seest thou not that We have set Satans on against the unbelievers, to incite them to fury?" S.
19:83 A.Y. Ali
Muslim
commentator al-Zamakhshari's note on S. 2:7 is noteworthy:
"It
is now in reality Satan or the unbeliever who has sealed the heart. However, since it is
God who has granted him the ability and possibility to do it, the sealing is ascribed to
him in the same sense as an act which he has caused. [John Gilchrist, The Textual History of the Qur`an
and the Bible, p.37, Light of Life, P.O. Box 13 A - 9503 VILLACH, AUATRIA])
This finishes our
defense of the Gospel. We pray that the Lord Jesus Christ will
bless everyone who studies and applies the information to win others to glory.
AMEN
My Response:
That is the worst explanation and playing of texts I have ever seen! I told you Christian
responses to Bible contradictions are very bad. Shamoun tries
to clear this mess up by claiming ah yes it was Satan who moved David, yet it was God
because God is in control of all things and the devils and everything do what he wills
them to do so hence it is really him doing it: Hence, although Satan was the
direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the Devil can only do that which
God allows him to do.
Although
what Shamoun says is true about beings doing things only if
God allows them to do so. However so when reading the text it becomes apparent that Shamoun's explanation comes nowhere close to what the text says.
In
2 Samuel 24:1 the
text is clear that it was DIRECTLY God who moved David, and in 1 Chronicles 21:1 the
text is clear that it was DIRECTLY satan
who moved David. So basically the text of 2 Samuel shows that it was God who directly
moved David and not Satan with God in directly moving David. Let us quote both verses:
1
And
again the anger of the LORD was kindled against
The
text in fact shows God DIRECTLY moving David, AND HE, he is God, so basically GOD moved
David directly. Now 1 Chronicles 21:1:
1
And
Satan stood up against
Here
the text shows Satan DIRECTLY moving David. Hence Shamoun's
weak explanation does not cut it. The text does not support his case at all.
This
ends the rebuttal to his supposed weak attempt of defending the Gospel, which he clearly
failed to do. The Muslim arguments still stand and the Gospel is still wrong.
AMEEN
My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.
Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.